511–520 of 529 posts
IMHO I don't think this is a fair title change. What is important here is the fact that access to DMs have changed. Not that the general import/export tools have changed. If Google changed their TOS to suddenly make everyone's search history public, would the title read "Google changes TOS"?
Previously, you could only see employee DMs if you turned on Compliance Exports, at which point you could download all of them going forward . Now it sounds like everything you've ever written could be downloaded at any time without notice. So, all of those communications you had with co-workers based on the promise they would be private until you were notified future ones wouldn't be anymore? Now it's ALL available…
I doubt this has anything to do with GDPR which is about personal information of customers and users. In this case the customer is the company and I don't think GDPR applies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about parent, but I did notice that! I saw it clearly written there. I read it and understood it. I understand that the person who wrote it believes it is sufficient to cover all relevant needs. I would posit that this person may not be familiar with the importance of collecting evidence against possible future needs. An IT manager's testimony from memory, no matter how perfect, is not as useful as evide…
No need to recite from memory when the log is trivially viewed or copied at a later date.
With that said, is it perhaps possible that direct access is preferable for reasons other than sheer laziness? Chain of custody and provenance both come to mind as items that some enterprise users of Slack might find worthy of consideration in some circumstances. This is obviously not nearly as important as employee privacy, but still...
I think if the employer provides the tool, it is their data. I know there are different traditions in other places where they consider something like work email to be more of an employee owned or privacy issues. I always thought that was a bit wonky and it is easier to identify who owns what by ... who owns it.
I may agree with result regarding Slack. But your argument doesn’t really work if you consider who owns a rented apartment, leased car, or company phone officially allowed to be used for personal matters.
I think if the employer provides the tool, it is their data. I know there are different traditions in other places where they consider something like work email to be more of an employee owned or privacy issues. I always thought that was a bit wonky and it is easier to identify who owns what by ... who owns it.
>I think if the employer provides the tool, it is their data. Not really. Just because the employer pays for the office building doesn't give them access to my private conversations with other members of the team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to recite from memory when the log is trivially viewed or copied at a later date.
You're right! The log can be easily viewed or accessed later. This of course occasionally requires an annoying amount of screwing around with reactivating old accounts, resetting passwords, and so on. Irritating, but of course a price well worth paying for employee privacy. With that said, is it perhaps possible that direct access is preferable for reasons other than sheer laziness? Chain of custody and provenance bo…
I think it is just that big companies have a way of doing things, are paying the bills, and employee privacy is close to last on their priority list—far behind CYA. They don't care that there is another potential solution.
I find astounding how many companies use a third-party messaging system for all their communications.
Do they not realize that anyone with access to Slack's data can read their stuff? That's over 1,000 people[1] if you only count Slack employees!
Do you really think that competitors or blackhats are above blackmailing or paying one of them for a data dump?
[1] As of March 2018, according to this Mashable article: https://mashable.com/2018/03/10/how-slack-uses-slack/
Looking at all positive comments here, this is generally a bad news. Not sure how much compliant this is with the law, but in this case the law should be more protective towards employees. I imagine the following situation I write on a company-owned piece of paper - "My boss is an idiot". Then take this piece of paper put it in an envelope ( owned by the company as well ), write the name of my colleague and seal the…
If you're going to call your boss an idiot, don't do it with the company tools. That seems like a pretty reasonable boundary to maintain.
I've never thought of much of anything that was my employer's as mine. If I wanted a private email conversation, I'd use my email, same with chatting and etc... that's just smart no matter what the local legal traditions are.
The volume of negativity surprises me if only because there are all sorts of ways to obtain some private channel communication.
Do people need to talk shit about their boss THAT often, but they feel they should use a work provided tool to do it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you have such conversations or expectations when using company chat? That's unprofessional and, frankly, stupid because it puts one's job in danger (as could an in person conversion heard by the wrong people at work). If you want to talk in private, there's dozens of other chat programs out there you can run on your own devices.
You're missing the point. Slack was one of those programs until this retroactive privacy policy change.